|reply to 28619103 |
Re: Graph of how it works
So you are saying it is OK to add additional bandwidth to accommodate for your own services to not impair the customers experience while allowing similar competing services to impair the customer service by not adding that same additional bandwidth?
All while claiming the reason you must "manage" the network is to prevent congestion. Congestion they claim is at the node in which adding bandwidth would further congest.
Just doesnt make much sense to me.
The graph clearly shows that the user is getting over 100% of their purchased service. I don't get your point.
Comcast chose to put additional investment in THEIR network to run a new and separate IP (not Internet) service.
As far as the capacity congestion argument. It is moot for two reasons. 1) they are not prioritizing the bits and 2) proper capacity planning has kept them as a top performing ISP for years.
So again I ask, "So you are saying it is OK to add additional bandwidth to accommodate for your own services to not impair the customers experience while allowing similar competing services to impair the customer service by not adding that same additional bandwidth?"
Yet it appears as though you are claiming that the xBox service is running through a whole new network that is independent of the internet service. Really? Do they need to run another line to my house for me to get this xbox service?
They are two separate and distinct services with provisioned bandwidth per service to the home. Look at how Uverse and FiOS work. One exception: I believe Uverse TV does impact the Internet bandwidth.
All networks today run multiple services over IP infrastructures (aka convergence). This allows for economies of scale vs building a separate physical infrastructure for every service. If the requirement is to have a separate physical network, it would be highly inefficient and much more expensive for the service.
You are completely wrong. They are the same "service" (ip packets getting routed) working over the same IP network. They are simply marking one of them to not be used against a cap.
I wont argue your uVerse and FiOS work, as I would say any IP routed packet that is treated differently than another over the same infrastructure is not being net neutral. IP phones, IPtv, IP games, IP video, IP anything that is routed through an IP network should all be equally "managed" no matter the source or destination.
This service also impacts the internet bandwidth, however, they are offsetting that by increasing the bandwidth for its usage. As it does for FiOS as any IP packet is going to take space on the network and there is no way around that. The difference with fiber is that you have so much damn bandwidth and scalability it doesnt matter.
I understand your last statement, mine was made in jest because of the stupidity of what was implied (see my first statement above).
This is network convergence and applicable to all today's providers. You would be hard pressed to find any ISP, carrier, etc, that does not use MPLS, QoS, or some other logical method to differentiate SLA based services across a common IP infrastructure.
Forcing operators to move to separate physical, dedicated infrastructures per service would be an enormous industry cost which would be reflected back into the service costs.
Net-neutrality is about the Internet and services specifically delivered over the Internet.